Improved Sedation in Diagnostic and Therapeutic ERCP: Propofol is an Alternative to Midazolam

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Adequate sedation of the patient is required for diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The anesthetic propofol, with its shorter half-life, affording better control, offers an alternative to the benzodiazepine midazolam. The aim of this randomized, controlled, unblinded study was to compare prospectively the quality of sedation under propofol and midazolam in patients undergoing ERCP.

Patients and Methods: A total of 80 patients were randomized to sedation with propofol alone (n = 40) or midazolam alone (n = 40). Blood pressure, pulse, and oxygen saturation were measured. Midazolam was given by the endoscopist and titrated to the patients' response during ERCP, to a maximum dose of 15 mg per patient. In the propofol group an anesthetist was present to administer the propofol and to observe the patient. Standardized testing procedures (Steward score, Trieger test) were used to determine the length of postendoscopy recovery time. Efficacy of sedation was assessed by investigators and patients, using scoring systems.

Results: Complete ERCP and adequate sedation was possible in 80 % of patients (32 out of 40) with midazolam, and in 97.5 % of patients (39 out of 40) with propofol (P < 0.01). The average propofol induction dose was 1.24 mg/kg body weight, with maintenance requiring a mean dose of 9 mg/kg body weight per hour, or the equivalent of 354 mg in total. The average dose of midazolam administered was 0.12 mg/kg body weight; the total dose averaged 8 mg. Recovery time in the propofol patients was significantly shorter (P < 0.01). The investigators (P < 0.01) and the patients (P < 0.05) both judged the quality of sedation to be better in the propofol group. There were no differences in blood pressure, pulse, or oxygen saturation between the two groups. One patient in the propofol group (79 years old) suffered a protracted apneic phase accompanied by hypotension that was managed by manual ventilation and drug therapy, and led to no complications.

Conclusions: Propofol proves to be an excellent sedative for ERCP and shows a shorter recovery time than midazolam. Because of the narrow therapeutic window, we recommend close patient monitoring.

References

• 1 Jowell P S, Eisen G, Onken J, et al. Patient-controlled analgesia for conscious sedation during retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a randomized controlled trial.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1996;  43 490-494
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 Reves J G, Fragen R J, Vinik H R, et al. Midazolam: pharmacology and uses.  Anesthesiology. 1985;  12 310-324
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Langley M S, Heel R C. Propofol: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties and use as an intravenous anaesthetic.  Drugs. 1988;  35 334-372
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Bryson H M, Fulton B R, Faulds D. Propofol: an update of its use in anaesthesia and conscious sedation.  Drugs. 1995;  50 513-559
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 Roseveare C, Seavell C, Patel P, et al. Patient-controlled sedation propofol and alfentanil during colonoscopy: a pilot study.  Endoscopy. 1998;  30 482-483
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Carlsson U, Grattidge P. Sedation for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a comparative study of propofol and midazolam.  Endoscopy. 1995;  27 240-243
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 Patterson K W, Casey P B, Murray J P, et al. Propofol sedation for outpatient upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: comparison with midazolam.  Br J Anaesth. 1991;  67 108-111
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Wehrmann T, Kokabpick S, Lembcke B, et al. Efficacy and safety of intravenous propofol sedation during routine ERCP: a prospective, controlled study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1999;  49 677-683
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 Steward D J. A simplified scoring system for the post-operative recovery room.  Can Anaesthet Soc J. 1975;  22 111-113
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 10 Trieger N, Newman M G, Miller J C. Measuring recovery from anesthesia - a simple test.  Anesth Analg. 1969;  48 136-140
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 11 Keffee E, O'Connor K W. ASGE survey of endoscopic sedation and monitoring practice.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1990;  36 13-18
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 12 Quine M A, Bell G D, McCloy R F, et al. Prospective audit of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in two regions of England: safety, staffing, and sedation methods.  Gut. 1995;  36 462-467
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Arrowsmith J B, Gerstmann B B, Fleischer D E, et al. Results from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy/U.S. Food and Drug Administration collaborative study on complication rate and drug use during gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1991;  37 421-427
  Google Scholar
• 14 Gepts E, Van de Velde A, Devis G, et al. Continuous Diprivan infusions as sedative for endoscopy in gastroenterology.  Acta Endosc. 1983;  13 83-100
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Raymond J M, Capdenat E, Beyssac R, et al. Qualité de la récupération psychomotrice après une coloscopie sous anesthésie générale par propofol.  Gastroenterol Clin Biol. 1995;  19 373-377
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Goff J S. Effect of propofol on human sphincter of oddi.  Dig Dis Sci. 1995;  40 2364-2367
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Kim L S, Cammarano W B, Querimit L A, et al. Randomized controlled trial of propofol for patient sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  47 114
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Froehlich F, Thores J, Schwizer W, et al. Sedation and analgesia for colonoscopy: patient tolerance, pain and cardiorespiratory parameters.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 1-9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Mackay P. Fatal cardiovascular collapse following propofol induction in high-risk patients.  Anaesth Intensive Care. 1996;  24 125-126
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Robinson F P, Dundee J W, Halliday N J. Age affects the induction dose of propofol (“Diprivan”).  Postgrad Med J. 1993;  61 157-159
  PubMedGoogle Scholar

M.D. M. Jung

Innere Abteilung, St. Hildegardis-Krankenhaus

Hildegardstrasse 2

55131 Mainz, Germany

Phone: +49-6131-147753